Bad News For
Fallujah
By Paul McGeough
04 November, 2004
The Age
The
people of Fallujah can expect to be the first in the Middle East to
whom a reaffirmed President George Bush reaches out - it will be with
guns and bombs.An unlikely win by the Democrat John Kerry would be a
line in the sand, a chance to put aside the debilitating blame game
over the mess that Iraq has become. Instead, the US in a second Bush
term will have to soldier on, with much of the world continuing to refuse
the meaningful assistance that might dig the President out of a hole
he dug for himself.
A win is a win is
a win. But as a referendum on Iraq and the war on terror, Bush's margin
in the popular vote is narrow, particularly when compared to the levels
of support he enjoyed in the days after September 11.
That will not stop
Bush and the neo-conservatives claiming vindication - and probably it
will fuel even more zealous efforts to shape outcomes according to their
unilateralist, America-knows-best view of a terror-stressed world.
The massive explosives
theft in Iraq, the bulk of which may be in the hands of insurgents and
terrorists now; and of the revelation by Bush's Christian supporter
Pat Robertson that the President had predicted before the Iraq invasion
that he would not lose a single American life, had me thinking Kerry
might fall over the line.
That went out the
window when Osama bin Laden voted for the enemy he wants - President
Bush - with his very deliberate and calculated intervention in the campaign.
On the strength of Bush's claim of victory last night, Fallujah needs
to brace itself; Tehran should tread carefully.
Iraq is the intractable
problem we know - and Bush is likely to authorise a full-scale US attack
on insurgents holding Fallujah in a matter of days. But imposing a secure
environment in Iraq will remain fraught - a well-organised, mobile,
funded and equipped network is in place and, the planned assault on
Fallujah notwithstanding, elections scheduled for January are unlikely
to proceed.
Tehran's nuclear
ambition and how Washington and Israel deal with it is the next crisis
we face. The Iranian view seems to be that their program is sufficiently
advanced for them to be deemed to be a nuclear power, even though weapons
are estimated to be years off.
Bush has so damaged
US credibility that the most powerful nation in the world is the most
hated. Despite European efforts to keep Iran in a diplomatic channel,
brinkmanship will likely drive the issue to a US push for sanctions.
Rallying support
for sanctions against Iran will be difficult, and the likelihood is
that the US will take a leaf out of Israel's book - in 1981 Israel bombed
a single reactor in Iraq.
The Iranian program
has as many as 40 key sites, making it a complex target. Despite that,
strike plans are being discussed within the Bush Administration and
egged on by Israel. The only option for Washington will be a resort
to the policy that got it into so much trouble in Iraq - a pre-emptive
military strike and all its negative implications for the US in the
Muslim world.
In the meantime
Osama bin Laden, the man that New York Post headlines refers to as "Rat",
is presumed to be in the mountains that straddle the Afghanistan-Pakistan
border, having signalled so clearly to the world last week that while
the US is bogged down in Iraq, the No.1 bogyman in the war on terror
is alive and well.
Bush's adviser Karen
Hughes said a re-elected Bush would work hard as a president for all
Americans. Judging on his performance in the last four years, that means
another difficult term in international affairs.
If the Bush claim
of victory holds, it means the so-called leader of the Western world
will continue in his role as ventriloquist's doll for a neoconservative
band that will claim on the strength of the popular vote that they should
be allowed to slip the leash.
Copyright ©
2004. The Age Company Ltd.